Telangana State Commission Dismisses Appeal Containing Claims Of Excessive Compensation Against Flipkart

Brief Facts of the Case

The complainant bought a Hammer Pulse 2.0 Smartwatch through Flipkart using his friend's account, paying Rs. 3,700 via PhonePe. On receiving the package, he found a formal watch instead. The complainant requested for a replacement, but the second package only contained scrap papers. The complainant applied for a refund, but the request was denied due to multiple refund claims, and the account was blocked. The complainant filed a complaint to the District Commission, which allowed the complaint.. However, dissatisfied with the District Commission's order, the complainant appealed to the State Commission of Telangana, seeking higher compensation. He requested a refund of Rs. 3,700, 12% interest, Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation, and Rs. 20,000 for costs.

Contentions of Flipkart

Flipkart argued that the complaint is not maintainable, either factually or legally. They claimed the complainant must prove his allegations, except those admitted. Flipkart asserted that it is only an intermediary for the services provided by third-party sellers and is not responsible for product returns or breaches of contract. It also pointed out that due to the complainant's frequent returns, his account was blocked. Flipkart referred to Sections 79 and 81 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which exempt intermediaries from liability. It stated that the demand for compensation was baseless and that the complainant approached the Commission with dishonest intentions.

Observations by the State Commission

The State Commission observed that though not a direct customer, the product was delivered to the complainant's address. It was highlighted that Flipkart did not appeal the lower court's decision, effectively accepting the order. Furthermore, it was observed that the complainant's claim for a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 and 24% interest was excessive, given the watch's cost. Furthermore, the complainant's claim regarding the package not containing the product lacked evidence. Considering these points, the Commission ordered a refund of Rs. 3,700 with 9% interest, Rs. 10,000 as compensation, and Rs. 5,000 for costs. However, the appeal for a higher compensation was dismissed.

Case Title: Vadla Anjaneyulu Vs. Flipkart Internet Private Limited

Case Number: F.A. No. 732/2022